I'd rather talk about Jejemons than tackle this highly volatile topic, but here goes:
This campaign and election fever has passed over the society like a Katrina-like hurricane over a mound of dry, loose ashes. It seriously disrupted productivity, efficiency, and most important of all, personal relations.
Everyone witnessed all the dirty tricks being brought out of the bag. It doesn't matter if the trick is exposed, as long as the target gets affected. The sad part is that campaign managers and all in their team have ceased the "vote-for-him/her-because" method and have devolved to the "don't-vote-for-him-because".
Do these campaign managers know what the price of human dignity is?
The dignity we are referring to is not that of the candidates', but rather those doing the campaign itself. Seriously, does anyone get anything in return? Pride? A pat on the back? Is this enough for people to break whatever bonds they have and attack everyone who goes against the candidate they're campaigning for?
It looks like during campaign season people turn into attack dogs.
People who run for any seat in government are trying to be public servants. Instead, they look for people to serve them, even if winning the seat isn't certain. This is clear evidence that people bank on the "utang-na-loob" concept too much - be it materialistic or how some see it as "nationalistic".
A friend of mine posted a very moving shout-out: he said that no matter what the outcome is, he will keep to the pledge he has repeatedly recited morning after morning - the "Panatang Makabayan". It doesn't matter if the candidates do the same, but why on earth do these die-hard advocates pledge their loyalties to PEOPLE and not to the country?
The government does not make the country; people do. And what differentiates one country for another are the culture and characteristics of the general citizenry.
What we've recently shown to the world and to our fellowmen should put us all to shame. Now THAT's sad.
Current Location:Ortigas office Current Mood:disappointed Current Music: none, just LSS (Alphabeat)
10:45 am - Amazing Japanese Solutions It's been 38 weeks (!!) since my last post, and it really feels frustrating not being able to write as often as I'd want to. Sigh.
(Am I violating any copyright laws by posting this link? I hope not...)
Gives the expression "magtanim ka na lang ng kamote" a whole new meaning, doesn't it? This just blew me away. Friggin' BRILLIANT!
Makes me feel a lot better... Especially during a time when everyone else around me makes me feel worse. Current Location:Makati office Current Mood:crappy Current Music: none
Using the power of decision gives you the capacity to get past any excuse to change any and every part of your life in an instant. ~Anthony Robbins
Day by day we are faced with situations which force us to make choices. Should I take breakfast at home or at work? Should I turn left or right? Should I talk to him/her? Should I finish this now or leave it for tomorrow morning? Decision-making is an indelible event in everyday of our lives. What is amazing, puzzling, and altogether irritating is that nearly everyone narrows down the vast horizon of choices into an eye of a needle by proclaiming this run-down and overused cliché - “This is the only way”.
Man has many differences from beast - one of them being the ability to see beyond any obstacles and find ways to overcome or maneuver around it. For a person to just see one solution and ignore the rest, there must be a reason behind this behavior. What makes one oblivious to all other solutions available?
Perhaps the most obvious reason is despair. When a person is in deep, emotional (and sometimes intellectual and spiritual) despair all pathways get fogged-up and questionable. This pushes the victim to go for the clearest and fastest way to reach either another pathway towards the goal or the goal itself. We are then faced with an altogether familiar dilemma that we’ve all faced at least once in our lifetime: should one look before we leap, or take a leap of faith? There is always another choice, and the blinding darkness of despair is also the tiny voice in our heads that tell us to make hasty decisions. This is also the same voice that mocks and laughs at us when we start blaming ourselves for making a bad decision.
Another reason is impatience. The younger generations have developed a widespread case of ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder), and this is very evident with the abundance of automation, direct links, “real-time” events, faster connections and other similar terminologies synonymous to “getting there now”. Once faced with dilemmas, these people tend to go for the first available option and forget about the rest. When they get to the next option, that’s when they’d think about where to go to next. It’s a faster, adrenaline-rushing journey that involves reflexive thinking and relies heavy on impulsiveness. The faster you go, the more pain you acquire when turning into a dead-end or tripping over unseen obstacles.
Perhaps the last and least admitted reasons are pride and laziness. People tend to want things to happen rather than reflect on each action to undertake. Think-before-you-do no longer exists as widely as it once has; in its place lies a new movement - Do-now-think-later. It may have similar symptoms as impatience, but this reason bears a greater danger, in the form of “non-choice”, or popularly known locally as “bahala na”. Non-choice or “bahala na” is entirely different from not choosing at all, since not taking any options is a choice and option in itself, readily available in all scenarios. When one leaves the decision-making to a “higher power” (i.e. God, destiny, etc.), does one honestly think someone (or something) else will make that decision for him/her? The answer should be pretty obvious.
What people fail to realize is that there are two obvious ways towards making decisions that yield fruitful and gainful results - REFLECTION and NO REGRETS.
Reflection is the most obvious key that can overcome any problem thrown at a person. People are not limited by options; options are limited by people. Human beings are equipped with the ability to make ways towards better solutions. For a “higher power” to limit options so tightly, there must be a willful hindrance to other choices. Real, insurmountable hindrances are only acknowledged by current, physical impossibilities; therefore, the only way options can be limited are through the hands of a physical “higher power”. Obviously, this does not exist, and will all the more never exist when an individual arms himself/herself with constant reflections.
Having no regrets is a more advanced method on taking action; it requires the ability to acknowledge that one has tripped, but not fallen. It requires one to keep moving forward and not stall nor stagger. This ability is normally brought about by maturity and experience, although it is not impossible to accelerate its growth in younger people. By having no regrets, the fear of enduring the consequences of an action gets thinned (and at times does not exist at all), enabling faster recovery from unfruitful decisions and retaining one’s goal in his/her mind no matter what happens.
Reflection takes place before and during one’s decision, while having no regrets takes place after an option has been taken (although it is possible to pre-meditate having no regrets before the option or action is undertaken). This makes both keys available for simultaneous use, making one formidable when trekking the journey of one’s day-to-day life.
Should everyone realize this, we can be assured that a more fruitful environment can be borne from this realization. Now a new question arises: how can we have everyone realize this?
This journey takes one step at a time.
Current Location:at home Current Mood:irritated Current Music: a very noisy AC unit
This is the reason why I love The Corrs - their melodies and lyrics just hit the spot. Even for a guy like me, their words are just so apt for whatever emotions I feel for someone. Details are just so vivid yet vague enough for you to ask for more.
This one is for you, no matter how many people think this is their song.
ONLY WHEN I SLEEP Music: The Corrs, Oliver Leiber, Paul Peterson, John Shanks Lyrics: Andrea Corr Transcript: www.corrsonline.com
You're only just a dreamboat Sailing in my head You swim my secret oceans Of coral blue and red Your smell is incense burning Your touch is silken yet It reaches through my skin And moving from within It clutches at my breast
But it's only when I sleep See you in my dreams You got me spinning round and round Turning upside-down But I only hear you breathe
Somewhere in my sleep Got me spinning round and round Turning upside-down But its only when I sleep
And when I wake from slumber Your shadows disappear Your breath is just a sea mist Surrounding my body I'm workin' through the daytime But when it's time to rest I'm lying in my bed Listening to my breath Falling from the edge
But it's only when I sleep See you in my dreams, (dreams) You got me spinning round and round Turning upside-down But I only hear you breathe Somewhere in my sleep, (in my sleep) Got me spinning round and round Turning upside-down But its only when I sleep It's only when I sleep
[Sharon & Andrea solo]
Up to the sky Where angels fly I'll never die Hawaiian High In bed I lie No need to cry My sleeping cry Hawaiian High
It's reaching through my skin Movin' from within And clutches at my breasts...
But it's only when I sleep... See you in my dreams, (dreams) You got me spinning round and round Turning upside-down But I only hear you breathe
In bed I lie No need to cry My sleeping cry Hawaiian High
But it's only when I sleep... aaaaaaa.... Got me spinning round and round (Turning upside-down)
Up to the sky Where angels fly I'll never die Hawaiian High But it's only when I sleep...
Fade out Current Location:at home Current Mood:mellow Current Music: what else?
All of us, at one point or another, had a little voice at the back of our minds asking "what if" questions. What if I have done that? What if I didn't? What if I was here? Or there? Some may have more than others, but they all result in a few seconds of images floating in our heads, bringing us into an alternate reality altogether and back. Whether we like it or not, the existentialist side of our beings stir and become, to some extent, uneasy until an answer is produced, no matter if one knows that this "answer" is a product of imagination or self-shaped fiction.
While some people love delving into the realms of daydreaming their what-ifs, some turn their backs to it, labeling it as "unproductive" or "useless". Whichever way one reacts to it, it will always be a little itch that only oneself can scratch.
Both sides of the coin would argue to the benefits and liabilities that entertaining these thoughts would bring. Of course, contexts of those who attempt to answer these questions will come into place. Realists would sneer at the thought of entertaining questions posed by these snippets of imagination, while romanticists may argue the importance of these thoughts.
A question is to be posed in this situation - how do we handle thoughts of alternate realities?
Though it may seem easier said than done, a balance of both sides must be present in everyone. The fact that every human being has had a "what if" at least once in their life demonstrates the ability of a human being to dream (not in the normative connotation of the word; rather, quite literal) and let go of the chains of reality. On the other hand, the fact that before and after these dreams occur we find ourselves back in reality shows that no matter how hard we dream we still find ourselves in the here and now.
These "what ifs" are not to be taken as is - doing so may very well lead to regret, whichever intensity it may turn out to be. These remote possibilities popping in and out of our heads may represent several things (in whichever form - physical, intellectual, emotional, moral, etc.) in the past which may or may not be happening in the here and now. Nevertheless, that thing which the "what if" embodies matters in the here and now - maybe not practically, but also definitely not entirely hypothetically.
"What ifs" may as well be guides that will definitely affect one's here and now no matter how hard one denies it. The choice to entertain the thought and the choice not to do so are both choices made. Given this, the fact that one made a conscious (or more importantly, a subconscious) choice to accept or ignore makes the "what if" significant to the here and now; i.e. ignoring it makes one's actions and decisions in the present reality firmer, while entertaining it makes one more reflective about one's present reality.
Whichever way a person handles this type of situation, a balance is still needed. Although this balance does not dictate an equal 50/50 balance, any possible context would still require both a reflection using "what ifs" and a stance in reality. With just one side present, the here and now becomes unfruitful and, at times, tragic. Current Location:at home Current Mood:inspired Current Music: Chopsuey, playing over and over in my head
A new year has come upon the whole humanity (and anything else whose sense of time is similar to ours), and it is inevitable how people tend to set resolutions for themselves. It is very interesting how people base their resolutions on events, objects, or people they do not want to encounter in the incoming year.
There is an unseen line in between each resolution listed - "Since this happened this year, then...", or "I don't want this to happen again, so...", or other similar lines. Although this is may not be intentional, this is stll the root of every want - an unwant.
Chinese philosophical schools of thought have followed this for ages - specifically yin and yang, a Taoist school of thought (correct me if I'm wrong) - and it seems that no other philosophy has been able to question it or challenge its universal adaptability. One cannot exist without the other, one cannot exclude the other, opposite sides are intedependent on the other - these are just a few summaries of the yin and yang, and all underlie the fact that these 2 sides are not always equal in scope or area affected. There may be imbalances (the Taijitu - yin yang symbol - does not portray it to enforce a balance in all its followers as much as possible, although a 3D interactive version must be available to educate followers and pseudo-followers alike), but only in scope; the wider the scope of one gets, the more concentrated the other becomes.
Even the concept of utopia is affected by this philosophy; "The Ones Who Walk away from Omelas", written by Ursula Le Guin, epitomizes the idea of how a society attains a level of utopia at the price of a young child who is kept in a world of misery. In this case, the Yang was spread so widely over the spectrum (losing its brightness) while the Yin was minimized (take note - minimized, not eradicated) to a very dark point.
It is safe to assume that resolutions are made and attempted to be reached by each individual to attain a personal utopia; however, are these efforts clearly reflected on? The effect of having unwants as the basis of these resolutions may be more destructive than productive, as the yin-yang depicted in the abovementioned short story imbalance may occur once resolutions are reached. By trying to attain a resolution based on the unwants, the unwants get highlighted, therefore the gratification attained upon completing the resolution becomes temporary.
If the resolutions, on the other hand, are created based on other positivities, it would be more like painting a picture based on how one object or color would complement the rest. The picture, once completed, becomes more beautiful and gets enhanced and completed over time, as compared to a painting created with different images in mind every time the paintbrush touches the canvass.
This is how "good" and "bad" resolutions are measured, if anyone would really want to measure it, that is. There really isn't anything wrong with making resolutions; however, carefully reflected ones would benefit not only the self, but others existing in the same environment as well. Current Location:Cafe at Pearl Drive Current Mood:contemplative Current Music: Kids yelling while playing some online game
People are filled with notions of idealism. There always is a certain “ideal” setting for everything. It is natural for humans to find what is best for them, but is ideology in all settings healthy?
Idealism is instilled in us particularly in higher learning, i.e. college. In almost all social science subjects (political science, economics, communications, etc.) there are theories and models which show us a cause and effect for in a vacuum – needless to say, even exceptions which are considered in these models are conceptualized and pre-meditated, which makes them part of a vacuum or ceteris paribus environment. The real world may present challenges to the scholars of these disciplines which are similar to these pre-meditated scenarios taken up in school; what most haven’t learned though is the dynamism of a human environment. These dynamisms may lead to one’s advantage, but more often than not it results in huge disappointments.
On one hand, one must consider why these theories and socio-political/socio-economic models are studied in the first place – to prepare everyone for these “common” scenarios, with similarities in different extents. It also presents a chance for these scholars to create an “ideal” environment once endowed with enough power and authority to do so, i.e. once promoted or upon acquiring a hegemonic center position in the environment the individual exists in. These are two different cases altogether, and if the latter is a result of a carefully followed former then the cases must still be taken individually, not consequentially.
The presentation of these “preparations” (or “introduction to the real world”, so to speak) are instilled in the students minds as a logical flow – if A happens, then B must be done to correct it. Whether this kind of education is intentional or accidental, the material itself presents this kind of logic to those who are exposed to it. In a dynamic world, however, the action A is not simply as is – A may be equal to A1, A2, A3 and may continue even beyond the possibilities that the most gifted scholar could fathom. These possibilities may not only multiply but alter as time goes on, i.e. if the theory says “if A happens, then B must be done”, there will come a time wherein B may be more unproductive than sticking to A.
In the former case then, can we say that the material used in these studies are problematic? No. The focus of the studying itself is not to memorize and apply the set theories, but to obtain the skills used in conceptualizing, implementing and evaluating these theories. More often than not professors and teachers are so grounded onto teaching quantitatively rather than qualitatively. A proof of which is to ask any student (or more importantly a graduate) to give them a type of examination, and you will get an answer which is linked to quantitative evaluation – multiple choice, enumeration, identification – before they mention qualitative types (i.e. essay-type or reflective exams). This form of education instills a very volatile idealism in students, which some carry and hold on to for the rest of their lives.
In some cases, this type of idealistic education would imply that these theories and models are to be applied in a certain setting only by those in power, and it would be one’s goal to reach this level in order to make the environment where the individual exists ideal for everyone. Ergo, the message sent to the scholar is “work your way up before using this model”. The subversive message here though still follows several logical flows, all of which still utilizing the ceteris paribus environment, such as “if A = responsibility 1, and B = responsibility 2, and C = promotion, then A+B = C” and the infamous “with great power comes great responsibility” which still follows the former equation. The result of which is an idealistic individual who would eventually question the process, model, and even sometimes the individual’s own being when the equation is not followed.
So can we say that in this case the professors and their messages become problematic? No. The messages, even if the subversive are discounted during discussions, would still have set effects on the scholars which would still result in disappointment in varying degrees. The scholars themselves are dynamic, and no one can accurately predict the fields that these scholars would step into after their studies (or during their studies, in some cases). Even if one predicts the field that they step into, no one can predict the conditions and factors that these workers go through in the workplace. The human factor eliminates all efforts to create a ceteris paribus environment and all hopes to make a workplace “ideal”. The result is still disappointment at a certain point on the then-scholar-now-professional.
How, then, can these situations be avoided? There is no point in coming up with one answer for this. However, the answer lies within the scholars and professionals. Paul Ricoeur stated that for one to become a person of faith one must let go of the religion that the individual stands with and question it; this way the individual can fully understand it and embrace it on his own will, making that individual a person of faith. This same concept can be applied to this problem. Higher learning is not the door, but it will show the person the way; it is up to the person to walk through the door, and how one goes there and walks through it is up to oneself. Grasping this should yield more productive results on both the teachers and students/professionals.
On the side of the educators, the focus of learning is not the quantitative knowledge but the qualitative, and nurturing the students’ intelligence (defined as the ability of an individual to adapt to one’s environment). Students should have the freedom to question and discern what may be fit for them and the environments where they would eventually work in. Professors should be dissuaded from “selling” these theories and models; rather, the presentation is for the students to learn AND unlearn, for them to accept and destroy, and ultimately derive the essence itself of the existence of these theories and solutions that would fit their environments.
On the students’ and professionals’ side, individuals must learn to break free from what they have learned and hoped for. No one has ever worked and yielded results for oneself only; all working people at all levels would have a consequential effect on the surrounding individuals. This is a factor that one must notice not only on oneself but on others as well, as these effects are factors that one must consider before actions and decisions are made. Idealism, ultimately, is not supposed to be targeted towards perfection, but rather towards a more progressive yield in all aspects. Every action and consequence is a progressive move after all, since these are all movements following a forward motion in time (ergo demotions are still forward movements, as these are effects that occur AFTER the cause happens). It is up to the individual to discern which of one’s options would be more fruitful not only for the self but for the surrounding individuals as well.
Idealism does not make or break a person, but the individual ultimately does. Current Location:Work, work, work Current Mood:Monday Blues Current Music: None, just the voices in my head
Lately, cries and prayers for change are heard all around us. Such changes are hoped for both in abstract forms – change in lifestyles, spiritual and/or emotional being, morals, outlooks in life, dreams and ambitions, etc – and material or specific forms – changes in the form of governance, institution leaders, laws and policies (even constitutions), technologies, budget allocations, educational materials, business processes, etc. Even generations are required to have a certain “change” in them to have its own identity (e.g. Generation X vs. Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers). But what is the reason behind these changes? Is it to attain a certain level of “perfection”?
Yes, change is inevitable, but what everyone has to keep in mind is that changes must be carefully planned and conceptualized, implemented and evaluated not for the benefit of the self only but for the good of the majority affected by it. When a certain change is made, the whole “process” in which the change is implemented alters to some degree. It could be as small as skipping an irrelevant process (such as gurgling mouthwash instead of flossing) to revamping a whole process (constitutional changes, elections, altering end-to-end business processes). Whether the outcome would be good or bad, the process is still changed; and whether the change be undone, an alter effect has already been achieved.
A particular desired effect for change is to achieve a “perfect process” in the environment where the affected individuals exist. But does anyone fully understand what perfection really is? Perfection is an illusion – it does not exist. No one can reach a state of perfection since change is inevitable. Perfection is also subjective, as the perfection of one is either insufficient or counter-progressive in the eyes of at least one other individual. It is not a matter of “it is perfect for me and I don’t care what others think of it”, otherwise the change would be a failure in terms of productivity and efficiency (since it is not for the good of the majority).
Perfection, or the belief that one exists in it, is also counter-productive. When one exists in this illusion, chances are that the individual would block out change. Although these people would want to believe that change is unnecessary, it still is inevitable, and refusing change would cause undesirable effects, such as the inability to adapt to one’s environment. For example, when the term Utopia is mentioned, a lot of people would automatically have an image of the Garden of Eden, or the extreme opposite – a fully automated world. In both cases, there would be a lot of elements lacking that would contribute to the community’s progress which, if not implemented, would cause a slowing down of progress and eventually a full stop to it.
The concept of perfection is instilled in everyone ever since we all started to think. From all parents wanting to have a “perfect child” to individuals hoping for “perfect lives”, these concepts have been major factors to the individual’s desire for change. This becomes problematic when change is coercively imposed either by the people around the individual or by the individuals upon themselves. Subtle to harsh and dramatic to sudden changes are implemented to alter a person’s way of thinking and lifestyle, but more often than not these changes are not for the good of everyone, but for a few chosen individuals who exist around the person who is subject for change. The individual, not the family, is the most basic element of a society, and it is for this reason that individuals are now attacked by agents of change. For reference, these can just be observed and compared to previous strategies and campaigns – from churchgoers having to attend Sunday mass as a community to the introduction of the TV mass; election campaign materials from being publicly displayed to being personally sent to an individuals homes; or advertisement from being broadcast to being sent to individuals via SMS.
The question that one has to ask himself is not “what happens next?”, but “is this change relevant?”. One major difference between man and beast is the ability to reflect. Reflection is not exclusive to those who implement change, but to those who accept change as well. Change happens in a two-way channel: the sender of the idea shares and the recipient either concurs or rejects. It is not omnipotent and unstoppable – and this is the one concept that a lot of people fail to realize. It is not the social acceptance and popularity bourn out of siding with the majority that makes a person important. The importance of the individual only comes out when a carefully reflected decision is made for change or against it.
Change is not always on the “good” side, nor is it on the “bad” side, if there are such sides. It just happens or gets postponed and developed. It is the understanding of these changes by each individual in the society that makes a decision which will define whether the change is for their progression or stagnation and regression. Individuals need to move away from the trial and error method and adapt a more reflective approach.
The end result of change is not perfection, but progress. Living in an ideal world does not mean that we have to be stagnant in it; rather, changes for adaptation and progress have to come into the picture at some point. Careful reflection must be done so as to cast aside counterproductive or self-centered changes. Expressing one’s reflective opinions must be instilled in each individual of the society. After all, expression is not an ability, but a right. Current Location:Ortigas Office Current Mood:sick Current Music: None, just listening to the a/c and phones ringing
04:07 pm - A very intriguing quote... I found this quote online and don't have the time to think and reflect about it yet. Still, I'll share it with those who still view my blog:
I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning. ~Aleister Crowley, Book of Lies
I have an entry in the making... I'm already excited about finishing it. It's been a long, long time. :) Current Location:New office in Eastwood Current Mood:about finances Current Music: sound of the a/c humming
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
sushi_steak's journal
disappointed
irritated
mellow
inspired
sleepy
sick